Wednesday, February 29, 2012

'Natural law' and 'devastating' fornication

I realize that the debate about contraception is so mid-February by now, but in Contraception’s Con Men (New York Review of Books), author Garry Wills (a Catholic) notes that the prohibition on artificial contraception in his church looks to "natural law" --

--saying that the natural purpose of sex is procreation, and any use of it for other purposes is “unnatural.” But a primary natural purpose does not of necessity exclude ancillary advantages. The purpose of eating is to sustain life, but that does not make all eating that is not necessary to subsistence “unnatural.” One can eat, beyond the bare minimum to exist, to express fellowship, as one can have sex, beyond the begetting of a child with each act, to express love.

I leave it to my Catholic readers to explain why Wills doesn't have a point.

We’ve been culturally watered down to think we have to teach about sex, about having sex and how to get away with it, which is intellectually dishonest. Why don’t we just be honest with them upfront that sex outside marriage is devastating?

My answer would be because they would quickly realize we are lying and stop trusting us on anything. The "Reefer Madness" approach to attempting to control behavior simply discredits those sowing baseless hysteria.

Does it all get back to the abortion issue? Here's the reliably shrill Ann Coulter:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

This kind of stupidity shouldn't even be dignified with a response. And the behavior of republican politicians should be more than enough to demonstrate how ridiculous and hypocritical their policies on sex are.

--I'd throw this right back on Ann and say that hardcore, religious conservatives' only remaining big issue is abortion because of their beloved subjugation of women. That's their cause: spreading male dominance and strict adherence to an obsolete, hierarchical, control-based method of population control. Outlawing abortion permits that.

What does it say about those who believe that sex is just about pro-creation when this "natural" purpose is strictly and instinctively followed by animals? As humans, don't we have the right to elevate sex into something more meaningful, without necessarily planning for children?

Eric and many of the liberal posters on this board will be happy to believe that I am 100% in your corner on this one. For years I went to a church that preached totally against sex outside of marriage, saying all the terrible things that would happen if we did it, like we'd always be comparing sex with our future wives to sex with our first partner, or that this would ruin our walk with God, etc. All this talk about sex, never realizing that it might want some of us to be more curious about it and more likely to try it.

Well, my walk with God was already ruined and was well on my way to being an agnostic in February of 2003, when I took the plunge with someone who was single, just like me. Most scariest and thrilling 2 minutes of my life. And the world did not end the next day, nor did I become a degenerate.

Of course a month later the Iraq war began and we all know how well that went for the country. I'm sure there is some pastor out in BibleBelt country will say that God punished the country for the sins of the individual. If by any chance that is true, all I can say is sorry, I was horny.

--Even if I agreed with Bill Wright about sex outside marriage being "devastating," I still don't understand what that has to do with either contraception availability to all, teaching about contraceptives in school, or abortion.

Most of the people I know who have had abortion had them during a marriage, for one thing. Most are still married to the same people and all do have children.

Is sex supposed to be something that people have no inkling about or desire for until they are married and then they are supposed to know everything, despite not being taught about it?

These kinds of weird, perverse, repressed attitudes about sex do so much harm to individuals and to society. False moralizing and, as you pointed out, Mr. Zorn, the "reefer madness" approach to miseducation is easily discernible by those being "educated." This scorched-earth approach to morality is the reason I abandoned the faith of my parents and the reason I don't get along with my mother; no distinction between small and large offenses, and completely healthy, harmless, and fully moral activities subjected to knee-jerk condemnation.

Wills has a point. Before we got married, my wife, a Roman Catholic, and I, a heretic Protestant doomed to burn in hell for all eternity, attended Church-sponsored pre-Cana conferences. The priest who ran the conferences talked extensively about sex (from the Church's perspective, probably not from his own experience) and I remember distinctly his saying that one purpose was to "strengthen the marital bond." He was also ambivalent about contraception, saying that it was a personal decision. So it's not all about having children. If it was, my wife and I would have "taken the plunge" (nice turn of phrase, Tom Blackford) only twice!

On the other hand, the increasing acceptance of sex outside of marriage (I'm a fan) has created an increase in single parenting which I'm sure we all agree is bad for society. Maybe birth control should not only be free but also mandatory.

I don't know why there is a fuss about abstinence-only education on the right and other forms of sex education on the left. I'm all for teaching public school students about the reproductive system in biology class but let's leave the personal side out of it entirely. Make it a values-free academic-only discussion. The rest is up to the parents and not the nanny state.

Ultimately, it is all about abortion: sex outside of marriage is much more serious if you consider the possibility that a child could be born to unmarried parents who are unable to properly parent a child. (Didn't much of the past era's premarital sex occur under the expectation that a pregnancy would speed up the wedding date?) And, as much as birth control can significantly reduce that possibility, the only means of guaranteeing it is if you're OK with abortion as a back-up birth control.

There are animals that have recreational sex. I believe dolphins and apes, and maybe otters are among that group. So how does human sex not for procreation become unnatural if "natural" animals have it just for fun?

I'd like to see all options taught for birth control in high school, with the parental option to exclude their children from that class. All the options should not be given any weight for or against, just stating the facts and risks.

Elizabeth - why do you limit yourself to unmarried couples? What about married couples who don't want/can't afford/etc. a(nother) child? Should they too not be having sex unless they're "OK with abortion as a back-up birth control"?

As for all options on birth control, it's already included in our health curriculum at the high school level, a required semester course, with abstinence highlighted as the only 100% effective method. We also cover all STDs, how they're spread, what immediate and permanent damage they can cause. My favorite part of the curriculum is having the students carry a "baby" doll with them everywhere they go for a week, so it's impressed upon them how the responsibility of having a child literally takes over their lives and alters their future plans and social opportunities.

Dienne -- I take it as a given that a married couple, even if they aren't necessarily planning on another child, would be open and accepting if they're suprised by a pregnancy anyway (even if that means financial challenges, accepting aid from others, etc.). I suppose if you're speaking of a married couple absolutely opposed to having another child and who have decided in advance that they would get an abortion should pregnancy occur, then -- well, you've hit the nail on the head. One of the anti-contraception arguements is that its availability convinces people that they have a guarantee against pregnancy that they have a right to claim through abortion.

--The "natural law" argument is completely incoherent. First - what is "natural"? Things that animals do? So should humans stop building "unnatural" dwellings or wearing "unnatural" clothing? Should we start following the "natural" behaviors of animals, like marking territory with, ahem, "natural" stuff? Is traditional marriage "natural" by that standard?

Another assault on any semblance of logic, reason and common sense by the increasingly insane conservatives.

Eric: Why do you allow Kip to get away with behavior that would have gotten a Con banned from this site long ago? His inference that Bill Wright is a homosexual may be considered slanderous in Utah and it's definitely homophobic here in Illinois.

Slanderous in Utah? Seriously, no one call a lawyer in Salt Lake, or I'm screwed.

And lexi, someone with your commenting history really shouldn't be so incredibly thin-skinned, lest you call attention to your head-spinning hypocrisy. Just another reactionary goof who can dish it out but can't take it. What a shock.

MCN, I noticed that instead of engaging with Wills' point, you engaged in your customary tactic of declaring him not a true Catholic, which is the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and chanting "la la la I can't hear you."

I guess that Lithium thing is intended as some sort of insult, but I can't really figure out what it's supposed to be.

Your thoughts about married couples not choosing abortion are just that -- your thoughts. As I mentioned above all but one of the abortions that I know of among friends/acquaintances took place within a marriage or in an engaged prior to pregnancy couple.

Your beliefs don't actually make things so.

• Women who have never married and are not cohabiting account for 45% of all abortions [6]

• About 61% of abortions are obtained by women who have one or more children. [6]

I included this Garry Wills link on a comment to the "Rick 'Cafeteria' Santorum" thread a week and a half ago. MCN didn't even deign to reply to me then, about that or a separate question I posed, though he had over a dozen other comments on that thread. So him dismissing Mr. Wills out of hand is actually an improvement, it seems to me. (Though I assumed that he was no fan of the gentleman and allowed for that in my original post.) Evidently, EZ paid no attention to my comment either, if he's just coming across this piece now. Oh, the indignity of not being one of the trusted regulars on this board...

Pan, like I said, I'm not interested in what Wills said and you'll note I haven't participated in this discussion except to express my thoughts on the poor fellow. The Lithium line is an obscure reference to "Buckaroo Banzai and the Lectroids from Planet 10" or whatever the hell it was called, a funny 1984 cultish movie with the dead guy from Robocop (Peter Weller?) that should have done better at the box office, but didn't. I was hoping to see a sequel. Eric's really good at pop culture references and I was hoping he would get it. Maybe he's peeved at me today, too.

@Jakash: I don't recall the post and I have so many people around here insulting me and giving me hell that I can't keep track of them any more. Please don't think I'm deliberately ignoring you.

Elizabeth, I think it's quite a leap to assume that just because a hetero couple is married, they would be fine if their birth control failed. My husband and I would then have an abortion, but we have never been in that situation in our 20 years together and do not consider abortion our preferred form of contraception. Lots of people just don't want kids, and I don't know what marital status has to do with that.

one segment of the population starts with the approach that "men and women must be free to have sex with a guarantee that no child results" and decide accordingly that the right to life must begin at birth, no sooner, with no regard to any moral reasoning about the humanity of the unborn child (and consequently think that so-called right-wingers are anti-women and anti-sex to think otherwise).

the other segment believes in the fundamental moral principle that the intentional taking of a human life is wrong, and reasons from this it's wrong to have sex in circumstances in which one feels a pregancy would be intolerable and abortion would be accordingly necessary.

Guess you can tell that I think that "don't kill human beings" is the better starting point than "men and women must be free to have sex with a guarantee that no child results."

Actually, just to reverse what I said previously, for anyone who is fully OK with abortion as back-up birth control, what does it mean to have sex "responsibly"? Is there any reason for teens NOT to have sex whenever they want to, and for sex ed to be as instructional and practical as driver's ed?

What you call "segments" are in fact the opposite end points on a wide spectrum of views, the extremist ones.
There must be a sensible solution somewhere between "complete abstinence from a basic human drive when no child is planned" and "freely available legal abortions of near-term fetuses with no restrictions".
I would say sex education in school, freely available contraceptives and safe, legal, 1'st trimester abortions in rare cases, especially in cases of rape and incest.

- It means understanding what you are doing, understanding the possible consequences like STDs and pregnancy and understanding ways to control these consequences. This is where sex education is schools is key. Simply telling teens not to do it has proven extremely ineffective. Sex drive especially at a young age is a powerful force, teens should be educated about it in a truthful, sensible manner, not in a condescending, dismissive way.

MCN,
Regarding the Catholic Church's teaching on abortion, which you have presented at length numerous times on this blog, I have a couple questions. You may find them irritating, but that's not why I present them. In the many paragraphs from the Catechism that you have posted on the topic, there is not one citation from the Bible that directly addresses abortion. The Catechism states that "2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion." Yet in the multitude of pages of moral instruction, interpreted and misinterpreted though they may be, contained in the Bible, there is evidently no mention of this grave offense that the Church sees fit to cite. Don't you find that remarkable?

Since the topic of this post is the "natural law", this is what I find most peculiar. The Church has it that "2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception." But nature dictates that many fertilized eggs never implant correctly. Many desired pregnancies result in tragic miscarriages, through no instance of human intervention at all. If every "moment of conception" resulted naturally in a baby being born, I would find the argument that life begins at conception much more compelling. But this is not the case. In using human reason and modern science to consider the issue, it seems that a strong argument can be made that the natural law is NOT that life begins at conception.

Likewise, if every act of sex were naturally to result in conception, the argument that each such act must be open to procreation might be more compelling, as well. But that is not the case, either.

I realize that you've undoubtedly encountered these arguments many times in the past, and I apologize if they are redundant to you, but I don't recall you addressing them here and would be interested to know your thoughts.

Jakash, your questions are always relevant and I don't have much time so here goes re your first: no quotes from the Bible. I can't speak to why what was included and what wasn't, although for starters I can refer you to the 5th Commandment.

Alternatively, and more to the point, under Catholic teaching (and Orthodox, I think, though I can't say for sure), teachings from the Church councils are binding as well, cf 2 Thess 2:14, I think. Protestants, of course, disagree, hence the battle between "Bible" Christians on one hand, and the Whore of Babylon Catholics (their words, not mine) who believe in both Tradition and the Bible.. One must recall that Christianity is not fully formed under the Bible which by its own terms does not include all of the events and sayings in Christ's life. My recollection is that there are surviving letters from the Bishop of Rome as early as the late 1st century condemning birth control and/or abortion, I can't remember for sure.

More some other time. Thanks for the stimulating questions and if this isn't a relatively complete off the cuff answer let me know and I"ll add more.

Thanks for the reply, MCN. As is often the case, this thread was pretty well spent by the time I got around to it. I understand that the Church has its Tradition, and I believe that the references that the Catechism DOES cite regarding abortion refer to sources from it, rather than the Bible. I must say, though, that I think the 5th Commandment is a bit of a stretch and that, if you were on my side of the discussion, you'd not be satisfied with that as an example. And that, out of all the proscriptions that WERE included regarding diet, etc., etc., this seems to me like a curious omission.

It occurs to me that I never actually asked a question in my second paragraph, but I guess it would be "given the state of nature as described here, would you concede that makes the application of natural law to this issue somewhat problematic?"

On abortion, I'm not sure if Leviticus deals with it or not. I think the Jewish tradition has a different perspective on it.

Re abortion and contraception, though, I think it's pretty clear that they were "frowned on" in the very early days. Church opposition to abortion and infanticide got it in trouble with the authorities and helped stimulate persecution.

I can't answer the natural law question, not really versed in the subject, have to go look at a condo. Some other time. Thanks.

About "Change of Subject."

"Change of Subject" by Chicago Tribune op-ed columnist Eric Zorn contains observations, reports, tips, referrals and tirades, though not necessarily in that order. Links will tend to expire, so seize the day. For an archive of Zorn's latest Tribune columns click here. An explanation of the title of this blog is here. If you have other questions, suggestions or comments, send e-mail to ericzorn at gmail.com.
More about Eric Zorn

Contributing editor Jessica Reynolds is a 2012 graduate of Loyola University Chicago and is the coordinator of the Tribune's editorial board. She can be reached at jreynolds at tribune.com.